why do people watching their weight obsess over fat content?

[nageov3t]

I went to subway for lunch today and noticed that they're like all about fat content in their food and I don't get it. low-fat, non-fat, etc... if you're trying to lose weight, does fat content even matter versus calories and, to a lesser extent, simple carbs?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Fat per gram has more calories so if you have two items that weigh the same, but one has more fat the higher fat one will have more calories... but yea people obsess about that stuff way too much.

 

[purbeast0]

because they are uneducated, just like people buy 'diet pills' and '15 minute a day for 3 days a week to get chisled' products off of informercials.

 

[dbk]

i love bacon

 

[zerocool84]

because they are uneducated, just like people buy 'diet pills' and '15 minute a day for 3 days a week to get chisled' products off of informercials.

Well at least those 15 minute a day exercises are 15 minutes of exercise they'll get.

 

[nageov3t]

i love bacon

me too.

and I've lost 215 pounds, so clearly bacon is good for you

 

[Special K]

Fat per gram has more calories so if you have two items that weigh the same, but one has more fat the higher fat one will have more calories... but yea people obsess about that stuff way too much.

This is pretty much the reason. One gram of carbs or protein has 4 calories, but one gram of fat has 9 calories. Foods with more grams of fat will therefore tend to have more calories on average.

At the end of the day it all comes down to calories in vs. calories out, however. You could get fat eating nothing but broccoli if you ate enough of it.

 

[Ns1]

Because it's easier than running

 

[mugs]

Why would fat matter less than carbs?

 

[lord_emperor]

Based on my own observations diet is the least important factor (outside of extremes).

When I had a physical job, 8 hours / day of physical activity, if anything I ate more and consumed more "bad" foods, but still lost fat / gained muscle.

But getting up and exercising is hard work.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Based on my own observations diet is the least important factor (outside of extremes).

When I had a physical job, 8 hours / day of physical activity, if anything I ate more and consumed more "bad" foods, but still lost fat / gained muscle.

But getting up and exercising is hard work.

Calories in less than calories out is th most important factor all other stuff is secondary.

 

[JohnCU]

i lost 48 lbs just looking at calories.

 

[nageov3t]

Why would fat matter less than carbs?

well, specifically simple carbs which are like nutritionally void versus their complex brothers.

I'm definitely not a carb counter, but I stay away from the processed stuff whenever I have a choice.

 

[JohnCU]

i like low carb, just like my cavemen ancestors

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Based on my own observations diet is the least important factor (outside of extremes).

When I had a physical job, 8 hours / day of physical activity, if anything I ate more and consumed more "bad" foods, but still lost fat / gained muscle.

But getting up and exercising is hard work.

Wrong. Diet is the most important factor when losing weight. If you're inhaling 4500 calories a day no amount of exercise will burn that off (unless your training for a triathlon).

 

[lxskllr]

It's complimentary to good health. Some people don't react well to high fat foods, and their cholesterol, and artery blockage goes up with a fatty(animal product) diet even though they may be thin.

 

[Colt45]

they are uneducated fools

 

[Fritzo]

Fat = high calories + no fiber + high absobtion. If you eat 100 calories of fat and 100 calories of carbs, you will retain more of the fat calories because your body breaks down fat last. This is why fat + carb foods are so bad for you (ie- french fries and other fried starches). You burn off the easy carbs first, and the fat just sits there and eventually goes into storage because it's not needed.

 

[edro]

Fat = high calories + no fiber + high absobtion. If you eat 100 calories of fat and 100 calories of carbs, you will retain more of the fat calories because your body breaks down fat last. This is why fat + carb foods are so bad for you (ie- french fries and other fried starches). You burn off the easy carbs first, and the fat just sits there and eventually goes into storage because it's not needed.

Yes

 

[JohnCU]

Fat = high calories + no fiber + high absobtion. If you eat 100 calories of fat and 100 calories of carbs, you will retain more of the fat calories because your body breaks down fat last. This is why fat + carb foods are so bad for you (ie- french fries and other fried starches). You burn off the easy carbs first, and the fat just sits there and eventually goes into storage because it's not needed.

at first i threw the BS flag, but then i realized that carbs are broken down first.

 

[dullard]

They obsess over fat content because there is so much misinformation about weight loss. Heck, even this thread is full of misinformation.

There was a simple gimmick a few decades back on an infomercial. That catch phrase was "fat makes you fat". Many years have passed, the product is long gone, yet we can't ever end that marketing blurb.

The result: instead of eating a handfull of full fat chips (~3 oz of weight, 30g fat, 450 calories), they now choose a full bag of reduced fat chips (6 oz of weight, 35g fat, 800 calories). The more low-fat foods they consume, the more they convince themselves that they can overeat, and the more weight they gain. Low-fat diets almost always end up being high-mass and high-calorie diets.

On the surface, there isn't anything wrong with a lower fat diet (assuming you don't go too low). The problem is that people can't ever truely stick to a lower fat diet. They think they are sticking to it, but they aren't.

 

[Fritzo]

They obsess over fat content because there is so much misinformation about weight loss. Heck, even this thread is full of misinformation.

There was a simple gimmick a few decades back on an infomercial. That catch phrase was "fat makes you fat". Many years have passed, the product is long gone, yet we can't ever end that marketing blurb.

The result: instead of eating a handfull of full fat chips (~3 oz of weight, 30g fat, 450 calories), they now choose a full bag of reduced fat chips (6 oz of weight, 35g fat, 800 calories). The more low-fat foods they consume, the more they convince themselves that they can overeat, and the more weight they gain. Low-fat diets almost always end up being high-mass and high-calorie diets.

On the surface, there isn't anything wrong with a lower fat diet (assuming you don't go too low). The problem is that people can't ever truely stick to a lower fat diet. They think they are sticking to it, but they aren't.

What infomercial are you speaking of exactly?

 

[dullard]

What infomercial are you speaking of exactly?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/magazine/susan-powter.html?pagewanted=1

 

[xanis]

Because they're stupid and they think by simply watching fat content they can make a miracle diet that allows them to lose tons of weight. Weight loss is NOT, I repeat NOT as simple as just eating low-fat foods.

 

[Zebo]

Because it's easier than running

Exactly they are stupid and weak. Run and you can eat anything you want and it's better for all systems - lymphatic, central nervous, etc Have you ever seen a fat cross country runner? Didnt think so.